Gun fair organizer acquitted in boy's Uzi death(MA)

The Washington Post ^ | 14 January, 2011 | DAVE COLLINS(AP)

[marktwain]

SPRINGFIELD, Mass. -- A gun fair organizer was acquitted of manslaughter and other charges Friday in the 2008 death of an 8-year-old boy who accidentally shot himself in the head with an Uzi at a machine gun expo in western Massachusetts.

A Hampden Superior Court jury found former Pelham, Mass., Police Chief Edward Fleury not guilty of involuntary manslaughter and three counts of furnishing machine guns to minors in the death of Christopher Bizilj of Ashford, Conn. The charges carry up to 50 years in prison.

Fleury's firearms training company co-sponsored the annual Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo at the Westfield Sportsman's Club, about 10 miles west of Springfield. Christopher was shooting a 9 mm micro Uzi at pumpkins on Oct. 26, 2008, when the gun kicked back and shot him in the head. The jury was shown a graphic video of the accident, taken by the boy's father, that led to a collective gasp in the courtroom.

The 53-year-old Fleury cried and hugged his attorney and his family after the verdicts were read, while several of Christopher's relatives walked quickly out of the courtroom without commenting.

[marktwain]

A tragic incident.

[vladimir998]

What a shame the boy was killed. It seems to me that his father should have known it was a bad idea to allow the kid to fire that particular weapon on his own in the first place.

[Peter from Rutland]

Glad he was acquitted, doesn’t get him his life back though. The kids father is the one who should be on trial. I wouldn’t even let an 18 year old fire an Uzi.

[DirtyPigpen]

Any father who allows his 8 year old son/daughter to shoot a full auto micro uzi, without any assistance, should have been the one on trial.
I’d let my 7 year old shoot a 1919 or similar MG on a bipod/tripod but never anything hand held, especially somthing as top-heavy as a micro uzi.

I feel for the family, tragic loss.

[USNBandit]

Short barreled weapons and novice shooters always require more care and attention.

One of the biggest eye openers I ever had was when I took my girlfriend shooting back when I was a teenager. She was an accomplished competitive rifle shooter, but I put a handgun in her hands and it shocked me how unsafe she could be.

[DariusBane]

“The kids father is the one who should be on trial. I wouldn’t even let an 18 year old fire an Uzi.”

While I wouldn’t let my kid fire that weapon with more than a single round in it...

Why does somebody always have to go on trial?

I guess cause this is America, and we long ago sacrificed the concept of liberty and it’s concurrent consequences for order, cooperation, and safety.

Liberty has it’s own consequences. The State is not necessary.

[muddler]

Indeed. It was an accident and both men will pay for their mistake for a long time.

[AvOrdVet]

Short barreled weapons and novice shooters always require more care and attention.

Even with veteran shooters, the Machine Guns and especially the "Sub-Guns", can get you into trouble if you don't constantly pay attention.

One thing I always tried to do, was eyeball the shooters at the range and get the small or novice shooters a "safety spotter" to go though the initial automatic fire phase with them.

[jim-x]

Liberty has it’s own consequences. The State is not necessary.

Well said.

[Syntyr]

Tragic indeed. I let my 12 year old Nephew fire a full auto P90. However, the first 5 rounds were single fire only. Then I loaded 3 rounds and then 5 rounds and then I let him rip off 10 rounds. And you had better believe we went over grip, stance, target, muzzle control many times before we went in to the range box. I was also right behind him just in case. That way I could prevent him from turning around or backing up. This was all AFTER he had proved his proficiency at handling the Semi Auto .22, Revolver .22, Semi Auto 9mm 1911 and the .45 1911. The funny one was when I let him hold the Thompson Machinegun, empty of course, and he didn't have the upper body strength to keep it level. That's when I called it a day for that outing.

[Candor7]

Glad he was acquitted, doesn’t get him his life back though. The kids father is the one who should be on trial. I wouldn’t even let an 18 year old fire an Uzi.>>>>>>>>>>>>

Agreed. Automatic weapons require specific training in order to be safely used.No one who has not been so trained should even pick up an automatic weapon. What did they do, allow the kid to try it with the selector on full auto? Was that a mistake? Did they think the weapon was set for single shot semi auto operation or something?Most people who first fire such a weapon allow it to ride up to the left, if they are right handed, and the weapon must have turned up and over in full auto. They are lucky no one else was killed. Dad had the duty to keep his child safe, he failed.I bet the civil suits will still be filed. What a tragedy.

[USNBandit]

Why does somebody always have to go on trial?

This is just the criminal trial. You know there will be a civil trial.

[gundog]

18 year olds get to decide for themselves.

[diogenes ghost]

"The kids father is the one who should be on trial."

While I don't agree with a trial, certainly the gun owner will be on the hook for big bucks.

But, if there MUST be someone on trial, it would be him.

The father is NOT the expert on automatic weapons, and should not be expected to recognize the explicit dangers...the expert IS.

If you took your family on a helicopter tour, and the pilot flies it into trees, are YOU at fault? Or is it the recognized expert?

One can conjure up dozens of similar scenarios...you put your trust in experts...that's what you are paying for.

[DariusBane]

“”The kids father is the one who should be on trial.”

While I don’t agree with a trial, certainly the gun owner will be on the hook for big bucks.

But, if there MUST be someone on trial, it would be him.

The father is NOT the expert on automatic weapons, and should not be expected to recognize the explicit dangers...the expert IS.

If you took your family on a helicopter tour, and the pilot flies it into trees, are YOU at fault? Or is it the recognized expert?

One can conjure up dozens of similar scenarios...you put your trust in experts...that’s what you are paying for. “

Country of litigious weenies. The Dad who was being silly that day will pay the price for the rest of his life. Everybody salivating for criminal and civil trials. Makes me ill. If I recall correctly the Dad was one of the organizers if not the owner of the weapon. So civil suit is not really likely.